[OutsiderFan]

If it's a dissapointment to bring to mind Falaise, historical shorthand for a really bad place to be and a of immense proportions loss for the Germans that hastened their ultimate defeat, per Eisenhower "unquestionably one of the greatest killing fields of any of the war areas", then I hope to see many more such dissapointments.

Agree totally. That said, if the Falaise pocket had been closed effectively the German army would have been unable to reconstitute itself as rapidly as it did. Skeleton formations are much easier to rebuild than starting from scratch. The war could have ended much quicker with the Russian army much further east. Eisenhower never said that, but many of his associates did. Of course, the Lyman pocket was "only" a few thousand troops, best case, and wasn't going to end the war either way.

I read something that said Ukraine taking Lyman is a big deal because it beat one of Russia's better armies to achieve the objective. Ergo, if Ukraine can take territory held by the enemy's best, it can probably whip much less capable Russian forces in other areas. Of course, I don't know how good the Ukraine forces are that took Lyman. Like was it Ukraine's best, or just an average Ukrainian force. We always talk about strength of opponent in sports. Not any different in war battles. In other words, quality of the fighters doing the fighting - and how they are equipped - matters when trying to assess who can beat who.

[OutsiderFan]

If it's a dissapointment to bring to mind Falaise, historical shorthand for a really bad place to be and a of immense proportions loss for the Germans that hastened their ultimate defeat, per Eisenhower "unquestionably one of the greatest killing fields of any of the war areas", then I hope to see many more such dissapointments.

Agree totally. That said, if the Falaise pocket had been closed effectively the German army would have been unable to reconstitute itself as rapidly as it did. Skeleton formations are much easier to rebuild than starting from scratch. The war could have ended much quicker with the Russian army much further east. Eisenhower never said that, but many of his associates did. Of course, the Lyman pocket was "only" a few thousand troops, best case, and wasn't going to end the war either way.

I read something that said Ukraine taking Lyman is a big deal because it beat one of Russia's better armies to achieve the objective. Ergo, if Ukraine can take territory held by the enemy's best, it can probably whip much less capable Russian forces in other areas. Of course, I don't know how good the Ukraine forces are that took Lyman. Like was it Ukraine's best, or just an average Ukrainian force. We always talk about strength of opponent in sports. Not any different in war battles. In other words, quality of the fighters doing the fighting - and how they are equipped - matters when trying to assess who can beat who.